Do you need to be likeable to be an effective leader?
It may actually undermine your credibility
Likeability may be an overrated trait in a leader
This question of likeability in a leader is one I have been grappling with for some time.
For me, the words which come to mind when describing an effective leader are credible, competent, courageous and consistent. But, how do we achieve this?
Conventional leadership and management studies stress the importance of leaders being warm and relatable. That they must be someone their team enjoys, admires and feels emotionally connected to.
But could these traits actually undermine a leader’s ability to lead? By softening their edge and being agreeable to people, can this dilute how competent or confident they come across?
In this article, this is the very question I consider: whether likeability is an overrated trait in a leader.
The problem with being ‘likeable’
Likeability and leadership are inextricably linked. We are taught that the best leaders are approachable, emotionally intelligent and empathetic. And, of course, to some degree this is true. The evidence shows that likeable leaders run teams with higher engagement and lower turnover.
But being liked is not the same as being effective. In fact, an overemphasis on likeability can be misleading. Ultimately, an effective leader is defined by their results, not their popularity, as noted by Peter Drucker, widely regarded as the father of modern management, who said: “effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results, not attributes”.
If leaders are making decisions based on group harmony or to avoid conflict, this will inevitably lead to worse decisions. Take, for example, a well-liked manager in the office. They might create a pleasant team culture. But if they avoid firm and unpopular decisions or difficult conversations for the sake of preserving harmony, standards drop and team development stalls.
In other words, striving for likeability may receive admiration in the short-term, but this will quickly dissipate if an organisation’s results are sub-par.
Aim for respect
Respect, on the other hand, isn’t based on charm. It’s built through competence, consistency and principled action. Leaders who are respected don’t need to raise their voice to get the room’s attention. They’ve earned the trust that when they make a decision, it’s coming from a place of clarity, not appeasement.
Organisational psychologist Adam Grant echoed this very sentiment when he said, “great leaders don’t obsess about being liked. They care about being respected”. The two aren’t mutually exclusive, but they are different. One runs on approval while the other runs on credibility.
To simplify it further:
Where likeability asks: Do they enjoy working with me?
Respect asks: Do they trust me to lead?
Respected leaders are clear on their values and consistent in their standards and, in the long run, people follow respected leaders.
A little bit of toughness may even help
To continue down this controversial line of thought, I’d go as far as to say that, when used sparingly, there are times when being seen as tough, even a little abrasive, can work in a leader’s favour. This is particularly relevant in high-pressure environments like turnarounds, restructures or corporate takeovers.
Research shows that in high-stakes situations, people are more likely to trust someone who appears firm, decisive and slightly intimidating over someone who is agreeable but uncertain. In one study, participants consistently chose to follow the more dominant figure, even when that person came across as blunt or unfriendly, because they were seen as more competent under pressure.
The traits that cause discomfort, such as overly direct communication, unapologetic standards or low tolerance for excuses, can also be read as signals of intelligence and authority. When delivered with a clear sense of purpose, these traits reinforce the idea that the leader knows what they’re doing.
And the harsh truth is that kind of leadership isn’t necessarily likeable. But in high-stakes moments, people follow the leader who looks like they know what they’re doing and not the one trying to win them over.
Examples of tough leaders
This ability to hold firm, set high indefensible standards and withstand discomfort can be seen in some of the most high-profile, high-performing leaders of the modern era.
· Steve Jobs was demanding, blunt and often difficult to work with. But his relentless standards pushed Apple to create world-changing products. He once said, “My job is not to be easy on people. My job is to make them better”.
· Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of Vogue, built her authority on decisiveness and control. Described as aloof and intimidating, she maintained high standards and rarely second-guessed herself. In doing so, she shaped an entire industry.
· Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, is known for his directness, consistency and sharp decision-making. During the 2008 financial crisis, it was Dimon’s calm authority that helped JPMorgan outperform its peers. He’s not exactly seen as warm, but he’s certainly seen as competent.
The lesson: rather than focusing on being palatable, focus on delivering results, which invariably involves making tough decisions. The respect will follow.
The gender caveat
It’s worth noting that gender bias shapes how likeability and authority are received. And, unfortunately, female leaders do not have the same freedom to deprioritise likeability in the way this article describes.
Women often face a double standard. Where being firm, direct and confident signals strength in a man, those same traits do not necessarily garner respect when displayed by a woman.
One of the clearest demonstrations of this bias comes from the Heidi/Howard experiment conducted at Columbia Business School. Researchers gave two groups of students the same case study about a successful venture capitalist with identical accomplishments. The only difference was the name: one group read about “Heidi”, the other about “Howard”. Both were described as assertive, driven and accomplished.
Students rated them as equally competent, but Heidi was seen as significantly less likeable. Her success and assertiveness, traits admired in Howard, were interpreted as self-serving and off-putting in her. In other words, the exact same behaviour was penalised when it came from a woman.
What this experiment illustrates is that when women lead with conviction and authority, they risk being labelled cold or difficult. When they try to lead with warmth, they’re often perceived as less authoritative. It’s a double-edged sword that many of their male counterparts do not need to face.
Having said this, the broader point remains true that leaders should not necessarily strive for likeability. But due to gender bias, women have to navigate the balance between authority and likeability far more carefully.
Wrap up
Ultimately, leadership isn’t as much about being liked as it is about being credible, consistent and trusted. That’s not to suggest that likeability doesn’t matter at all. In many environments, it helps open doors, builds rapport and makes teams easier to lead.
But likeability shouldn’t be the goal.
Machiavelli famously wrote that it is safer for a leader to be feared than loved, if they cannot be both. In today’s workplace, leaders who pursue approval zealously often end up being neither respected nor taken seriously.
A leader knowing when to use their edge, when to say the hard thing or enforce a standard, can create clarity, signal competence and earn trust.
There is an irony in this approach. Over time, the leaders focused on results and willing to seem tough in the short term — who are comfortable with not being liked in every moment — are often liked more in the long run.
Totally agree that a leader should aim for respect, and not pursue approval! I also loved learning about the Heidi/Howard experiment.
Steve Jobs is the last guy I would agree to work under